Few days ago I've seen an ad for a realistic looking extra finger, you attach it to one of your other finger so that you have an extra finger sticking out. Then when someone makes real incriminating photo of you you point out that extra finger and say it's ai generated.
Someone is going to troll civilization with an AI service that produces incriminating deep fake photos's, security videos, event stubs, receipts, chats, and suspicious crypto currency transfers, all telling compelling tales of motive, opportunity and means.
Preemptively plant evidence to frame anyone you want for any crimes you plan to commit. I hear police departments love cases where they can efficiently dispense looking for alternative suspects. But leave a dozen backup suspect shaggy dog crumb trails just in case. Judicial system take that!
I have no idea where deep fakes are taking us, but if we don't get a cryptographic proof of provenance, location (proof of network latency) and time stamp system working soon for all "evidence", journalistic photos, questionable selfies, nights alone at home nowhere near any crime scene, things are going to get very crazy.
> Few days ago I've seen an ad for a realistic looking extra finger, you attach it to one of your other finger so that you have an extra finger sticking out. Then when someone makes real incriminating photo of you you point out that extra finger and say it's ai generated.
It's fascinating how much of a gap there is between how this is socially perceived (undressing someone) and what's actually happening (an hallucination of a naked body).
I see how this can lead to real problematic situations, but it's also so dumb, I don't think there will be any going back. I have no idea how we'll deal with this, I can't imagine we'll just accept that people have bodies and they don't need to be harrassed over it, but there must be a way and we'll find out.
They could do that before by claiming they were photoshopped. The reality is in these situations it seems far more likely that whether the nudes were fake or real claiming they were fake is unlikely to be believed in a social situation where they are publicly leaked.
The point isn't that it wasn't possible before, it's that it's 100x faster, easier, and cheaper to fake nudes now than it was previously. I think the reason for why claims of leaked nudes being fake are scoffed at is because making 100% believable fakes takes non-negligible time and effort, and maybe even money. Now, it's just "upload clothes-on image, download clothes-off image 20 seconds later". I think it's not insane to expect this huge shift in accessibility to eventually cause social changes — in the same way that asking for someone's Instagram is normal now, despite Instagram being a relatively new invention, I think it's pretty obvious that a few years from now, nude photos will be assumed by default to be fake rather than real. The social standards are a product of reality, they don't determine reality.
Agreed. The "transition period" between this technology being invented and society finally adapting to its existence is probably going to be quite rough for a lot of people. My only hope is that society adapts quickly.
If God meant for people to be naked, then they'd be born that way.
Society has a lot of adapting to do, before they lose their superstitious hang-ups and religious bigotry. It will be a long time, if it ever happens at all.
If it ever does, what's your plan if it doesn't go as you predict? After all I don't think you're from the future coming to reassure us that all this is actually totally fine.
If you look at it as a form of revenge pornography where the intention of publicly sharing it is to demean and shame the victim the harm should be pretty obvious. People kill themselves over selfish actions like that.
Even today, women are judged not on the facts of who they are, but by the image men (and women) create around them. They're already bullied and harassed for their virginity (or lack thereof), "body count" (real or perceived), promiscuity, their conformity to society's standards of beauty, and so on.
Nudes, especially those created specifically to objectify or harass, will harm women. It will harm their self image, it will harm their reputations, it will harm their careers (women are already being fired from jobs because of nude pictures of them on various websites).
People are not rational beings. We can know intellectually that a picture is probably a fake, and it won't change how it impacts us. Especially if it plays on our expectations. We tend to go with our first impression, even if it's later proven wrong.
See: "Biden was shown images of babies being beheaded." An image many of us still have in our mind, even though it was explicitly debunked.
This is like complaining that if someone scribbles over a map with blue crayon that they're creating a lake and destroying property. The map is not the territory. And even more than the normal meaning of that in this case the image is really not actually a photo of the person.
The complexity of the algorithms involved in making images obscures that simple fact and enables a lot of hyperbolic nonsense and dangerous calls for use of force. There's no one being "undressed" here.
Not really, if you sell someone a fake map and pass it off as authentic... you could be liable of fraud. The problem isn't that people are being "undressed" it's that the images are circulated as authentic in order to harm people.
There's certainly legitimacy to the public distribution aspect you lay out. I imagine there are laws that'd almost cover that already. But if you look around this very HN post you'll see most of the calls are for making generation itself illegal, not distribution.
edit: you yourself argue for making generation illegal in a different thread up above.
How about you try it out and send it to your mom and see if she believes it's authentic?
Or how about have someone else send it to your boss, work contacts, and coworkers? Whether or not it's authentic, that's irrevocably harmed your relationship with them and there is nothing you can do to reverse that.
People fight wars over maps, even though they are not the territory. Nine dashes, can you imagine? The maps can be just as risky as the territory. People will feel just as violated by fake nudes as real ones.
People don't fight wars over a random human person drawing over a map. It's not even something you'd think would be made illegal.
The wars happen when nations disagree about borders. Those borders are represented by maps but luckily nation states don't confuse the two (except for political theater and posturing). The wars happen when the real physical objects go over the real physical borders not when a random person scribbles on a map.
I think my analogy holds up pretty well even with your stretching of the scenario.
I believe, as with most actions (and crimes), intent matters.
You can take a picture of a clothed teenager and it can be perfectly and socially acceptable. Or it can be potentially illegal, based on intent. The same with images taken of nude babies.
Are you creating nude art with the intent of celebrating the human form, or sexual objectification. If it's the latter, do you have consent?
Intent matters, and it will probably be the linchpin for the legality for these discussions.
The term fake implies that it is being passed off as real. No one thinks that the sculpture of Britney giving birth is the real thing and its not being displayed as such.
Based on where things are at, I feel like there's legitimately no way to stop this. That said, there will be attempts to stop this, and that is something I'm almost more scared about.
What laws will be made attempting to stop what likely can't be stopped?
When something like this becomes commonplace will society just sort of get over it. Fake nudes are fake. They only have power because of perceived taboo over the real thing.
I don't want society to "get over" highly realistic fake nudes of high school girls. We have to draw the line somewhere (although I'm not sure how to solve the problem). There have been many cases reported of such images being passed around schools as a form of harassment and bullying. Such incidents are highly damaging to the victims, sometimes essentially forcing them to transfer schools and in a few cases perhaps even contributing to suicides.
That's a non-answer, totally disconnected from the reality of the problem. Harassment is already illegal. Punishing the harassers doesn't undo the damage. And in most cases the harassers are themselves also minors. They often act without really thinking through the consequences, and because they're minors they can't be given severe punishments.
I dunno about that. If they get realistic enough that you can't differentiate between real and fake people will definitely use them to abuse, bully, etc.
Whatever the computer guesstimates as your nude body will always be an estimate. It cannot know what you actually look like under your clothes.
Being able to differentiate real and fake isn't the point. An occasional nude is special. An occasional fake nude is special. An infinite number of fakes nudes might just stop having any real power to abuse.
Sexuality is mostly in the mind and a real nude image has a element of fantasy that a fake doesn't have. The fact that it's just a made up bunch of pixels that has no real meaning in real life is a factor that we haven't yet fully experienced.
This is stickier than that in the US. I can paint a realistic nude and it's expression. Whether my tool is a paintbrush or neural network, as far as I know right now, makes no difference.
You might have some opportunity exploring a defamation action, but still, it's tenuous.
I don't have an answer, but I think we're looking at constitutional battles.
So how do you determine if someone is in possession of non consensual nude pictures? We as a society properly assume that all underage nudity is non consensual because children can’t legally give consent to nice pictures
But the creation/use of CSAM and meth harm people other than the person using them. I don't see who's being harmed if a model is used to generate a nude image, and that image isn't distributed.
I wasn't making a qualitative comparison of the harms, merely responding to the question of what kinds of laws and enforcement mechanisms will be used to stop AI pornification of people.
Simply put, I don't think we'll see anything we haven't seen before, because this isn't a new thing that hasn't been done before- only the means of production (using AI) is new.
Perhaps it is the case that our legislators, in their infinite wisdom, have dragged their feet on privacy issues precisely because they knew it would lead to this enforcement nightmare when AI was used to generatively breach our most basic personal boundaries. My god, this whole time I thought they were just corrupt and incompetent, but they were actually protecting us!
Doesn't seem so difficult? make it illegal to produce and distribute nude images of people without their consent. Enforcement can't be perfect, but neither are csam or revenge porn laws.
Very shortly you don't need to distribute the "nude" image though. The reference images just needs to be public with a one click way to get the tranformed result.
If we really shorten that, it could all fit into an url with a parameter pointing to the original, and nobody's distributing a specific image, they're all privately generated.
FUD. Women (or any other gender) can not be undressed in a photo. Only IRL.
What these software programs do is something else entirely. They refactor the photo into something else which is not the same person in a naked state but an entirely fictional work of "art". It is analogous to posing in front of a painter fully clothed, and the painter applying anatomical knowledge and imagination to add artifacts (or even nudity) that never existed IRL.